Agenda item

(Ms Harrison (Director of Assurance and Strategic Development) NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent, Mr Meikle (Director of Commissioning,  Finance and Investment) NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent), Ms Shutler (Director of Strategic Development) East Kent Hospitals NHS University Foundation Trust, Mr Pearce (Environment Agency), Councillor Bano Dover District Council (on Behalf of Mr Prosser MP), Mr Ingleton (Head of Regeneration)  Dover District Council were present for this item.)

(1)       The Chairman explained that this item was being considered by the Committee as the NHS were reconsidering the site of the proposed healthcare facility due to a flooding objection raised by the Environment Agency.  He emphasised that the HOSC’s role was to consider the heatlh issues relating to the proposed new facility and could not get involved in the merits of planning issues.  He then invited Ms Harrison to set the context for the discussion.  She gave a brief background to the decision to proceed with a healthcare facility on a town centre site, which had been supported by this Committee in 2008.  Although the PCT were aware of the flood issue with the mid town site they had assumed that works could be carried out to alleviate the risk.  However, despite remedial works the were in the position of having to prove that it was the most suitable site and due to the flooding objection, they were having to consider other options.

(2)       Ms Harrison reaffirmed that the PCT’s priority was to get better healthcare for the people of Dover as soon as possible and because of time constraints they do not have time to carry out the full range of mitigation measures to make the mid town site safe.  As a PCT they did not provide direct investment in to the building but paid for the services provided and therefore needed to take account of affordability and durability.  The PCT Board had decided at its meeting in November to support whichever option was affordable and durable.  She referred to the time pressures to deliver this facility; the money that had been allocated would only be available for a short period and after that there was a danger that it would be lost to other health service projects.

(3)       Ms Shutler, on behalf East Kent Hospitals NHS University Foundation Trust who were responsible for the capital funding, explained that there was a pressure to get work started in Dover.  The original plan was for work to start on the mid town site in November 2009, and so there was already a significant delay.  This funding was not ring fenced and in order that it was not re-allocated to other schemes such as the enhancement of other hospital sites, it would be necessary for a decision to be made on the site at either the November or January meeting of the Board of Directors, so that the funding could be allocated within the next 2 years.

(4)       Mr Ingleton, Head of Regeneration for Dover District Council, stated that the Council’s preferred site was mid town and that they were working with partners to find a solution to the flooding risk so that the site can go forward.  The issues with this site went beyond those raised by the Environment Agency there were also issues with Southern Water and Kent Highways.  There had been meetings with Southern Water and they were doing all that they could reach a timely solution.  There had been a meeting with the KCC Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development to see how they could take forward the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ money allocated for surface water management plan in Dover. 

(5)       Although Mr Prosser MP was not able to attend the meeting, Councillor Bano from Dover District Council represented him at the meeting and read out a statement from him in support of the mid town site.

(6)       Mr Peace from the Environment Agency explained that they had been working with Dover District Council on their statutory flood risk assessment since 2007.  In September 2007 they had identified the mid town site as being in the highest flood risk zone.  In accordance with government advice they had asked the District Council to look at an alternative site.  He explained the 2 stage sequential test for site at risk from flooding.  The first part was to ask the applicant to look at all available sites and to choose the one with the lowest flood risk.  If there are no other suitable sites then they should choose the most appropriate type of development for the site and seek to make it safe from flood risk.  Modelling work had been carried out on the flood risk which had shown that the mid town site was at flood risk from river and surface water and sewerage.  The site was in the lowest part of Dover and in the area of highest risk.  In summary the proposal was to place the most vulnerable type of development in the area of highest risk.  If the Environment Agency objected to the planning application it would go to the Secretary of State for determination and it was likely that the objection would be upheld.

(7)       In response to a question Mr Pearce confirmed that there was a history of flooding events on the site and that it had a 1 in 20 year river flooding risk and the flood risk on the site was accessed in 2007 as the highest risk.  In relation to timescale for development of the mid town site, Mr Pearce stated that the Environment Agency would object to the proposed development on the basis of the sequential test i.e. that there were other sites that were not at risk of flooding.  He believed that if measures to mitigate the flood risk on the midtown site could take between 5 and 10 years. 

(8)       Disappointment was expressed that the issues with this site had not been known when the site was first identified.  Members acknowledged the importance of a decision being made on the site for this facility as soon as possible so that the funding for this facility in Dover would not be lost.

(9)       Ms Harrison asked the Committee for their support for the PCT to push ahead with the most affordable and rapidly deliverable option.  Mid town would take time to develop and it was necessary to balance with the risk with the opportunity to develop this facility.  There was an opportunity to move quickly towards the development of the Buckland site as in was in the Trust’s ownership and therefore deliverable.  They would need to assess the Whitfield site option.  They were aiming to have a board decision in November 2009. She expressed the personal view that it would take to long resolve the flooding issues for mid town and the funding may well be lost. 

(10)     Mr Meikle stated that local GPs were keen to bring acceptable and accessible services back to Dover and to move forward as quickly as possible.

(11)     There were conflicting anecdotal views put forward at the meeting about the frequency of flooding on the mid town site. 

(12)     In relation to the Whitfield site Mr Ingleton stated that Whitfield was important for employment purposes and that development of the site for a healthcare facility was not a straightforward option and their any application could end up being referred to the Secretary of State for determination.  There were different views expressed as to the adequacy of car parking and transport links to the Whitfield site. 

(13)     Members asked that the funds allocated by DEfRA for the surface water (flood) management plan for Dover should be utilised as soon as possible to assist with the site assessments.  It was agreed that details of the timescale for producing this plan would be sought.

(14)     Ms Harrison suggested that the committee invite her back to a meeting early next year so that she could present details of their agreed site and implementation plan.

(15)     RESOLVED that the Committee support the PCT in moving forward with an affordable and rapidly deliverable option for a healthcare facility in Dover and that they be invited to attend to February meeting of the Committee to update Members on progress.